EvC Forum: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection

mark24

Member (Idle past 5214 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 11 of 350 (261627)
11-20-2005 6:49 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by randman
11-20-2005 6:40 PM

Re: but you missed answering the question ...

randman,

bird vision is a little different spectrum so there's a lot to criticize.

So birds have trouble seeing trees, too?

A similar process occurred when most of the Indians died due to epidemics the Europeans had built up more resistance having already been decimated, but if we were to speak of that as evolution, it would be seen as racist because it suggests speciation when racial differences are not speciation.

It's still evolution, the ratio of alleles in the population has changed via natural selection (the alleles that confer resistance are now much more prevalent in the population). The same happened with bubonic plague in Europe, a corollary of which makes Europeans more resistant to HIV than other populations. Not macroevolution, not speciation, but still evolution. Racism is neither here nor there.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 11-20-2005 06:50 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 9 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:40 PM		randman has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5214 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 14 of 350 (261642)
11-20-2005 7:39 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-20-2005 7:04 PM

randman,

I just can't help myself...

1. First off, no the study does not rule out all the various factors that could have influenced whether lightly colored or darkly colored moths became more dominant as a result of soot.

We know that light moths on dark backgrounds are more likely to be taken than the other way around (& vice versa), so it stands to reason that predation is the cause of the proliferation of the moth variants. It's obvious.

It could be something else entirely, perhaps another aspect of pollution, coincidence, etc,...

Ad hoc. Do you never tire of committing logical fallacies? If you have a non ad hoc explanation, we'd be delighted to hear it.

2. Secondly, birds have the ability to see in the UV spectrum and the ignorance of that basic fact renders moot any conclusions about what birds actually see in this instance.

Given that birds pick off the light moths on dark backgrounds far easier than the other way around, & vice versa, I fail to see what your point is? The salient point is that a selective advantage exists in moths of various colours on various backgrounds. This we know. How does birds having UV vision make any difference?

3. Peppered moths are nocturnal and so releasing them in the day-time to draw conclusions about their behaviour also makes the study based on faulty data.

Obviously the moths are not camouflaged when they are flying at night, but during the daytime when they are at rest. This is when the selective advantage is evident.

4. In reality, birds are not even the primary predator of peppered moths, but rather bats are. Bats method of sensing prey is totally different, and relies on sound waves and thus bats tend to capture moths in flight rather than while they are resting. This fact further makes the claims of the study to be somewhat fantastic in nature and without solid scientific standing.

Irrelevant. The camouflage works during the day when the moths are at rest, what eats then during the night is neither here nor there.

5. I have heard but not verified that these same experiments were repeated elsewhere in the world with the opposite results. As such, since the experiment is not repeatable, it falls down on that merit as well.

Since it's not verified, we'll ignore this, then.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 13 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 7:04 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 19 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:07 PM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5214 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 64 of 350 (261792)
11-21-2005 3:59 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by randman
11-20-2005 9:07 PM

Re: mere unfounded claims

randman,

Really. You know, eh? Based on what. Please explain how color affects bats hunting for prey.

We know because there are at least two studies showing it, obviously. Kettlewells, & Howlett and Majerus The Understanding of Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, published in 1987.

quote:
Moths in Polluted (dark) Woodland

Dotted Whitish Form: (30/50) x 100 = 60% Melanic Form: (20/50) x 100 = 40%

60% - 40% = 20% The Dotted Whitish form is predated on 20% more than the melanic form in the polluted woodland.

Moths in Non-polluted (pale) Woodland

Dotted Whitish Form: (15/50) x 100 = 30% Melanic Form: approx. (30/50) x 100 = 60%

60% - 30% = 30% The Melanic form is predated on 30% more than the dotted whitish form in the nonpolluted woodland.

Colour DOESN't affect bats hunting for prey, quoting myself from my last post:

mark writes:

Irrelevant. The camouflage works during the day when the moths are at rest, what eats then during the night is neither here nor there.

Obviously the moths are not camouflaged when they are flying at night, but during the daytime when they are at rest. This is when the selective advantage is evident.

Ad hoc. Do you never tire of committing logical fallacies? If you have a non ad hoc explanation, we'd be delighted to hear it.

I am sorry, but it's not my fault you are so poorly educated that you cannot grasp the difference between 2 things occuring at the same time, and establishing causal relationships. It is not ad hoc to ask that any study show a causal relationship when it makes claims of something causing something, and part of that is ruling out other potential causes.

I am quite happy to accept that there may be other factors involved, but a causal link has already been established, it is unecessary to establish more in order to conclude that the phenotypes of the variants results in differential predation in different environments & that this leads to natural selection.

Your response is both ad hoc & a red herring. It's not my fault you are too poorly schooled in logic to understand this.

The fact the study seems blissfully ignorant of bats as predators calls into questions the basic level of knowledge and logic by those doing the study.

Can't you read??

Bats can only pick moths on the wing when they are not camouflaged, ergo the selective advantage of camouflage at night, on the wing is a big fat ZERO. Got it? Therefore bat predation cannot be cause of the differential predation of the phenotypes.

Given that birds pick off the light moths on dark backgrounds far easier than the other way around, & vice versa, I fail to see what your point is?

Have you ever been in a forest surrounding an area with a lot of soot and pollution? The study places great emphasis on the moths resting on tree trunks, but once again, the study assumes something that is not true, namely that moths typically rest on tree trunks. If you cannot see why basing conclusions on faulty assumptions makes the study erroneous, we have little to talk about.

The conclusion is that light phenotypes on dark surfaces are predated more than the other way around, & vice versa. They could have been pinned to cardboard of different colours, or lichen, or rock, or any other part of the environment affected by pollution, it matters not a jot. What's your beef? The conclusion is valid.

I would still wager that there are plenty of lightly colored items such as leaves in a forest next to industrial soot pollution. The study, emphasizing only tree trunks, is just plain bad science.

Who cares what you'd wager. Ad hoc.

Obviously the moths are not camouflaged when they are flying at night, but during the daytime when they are at rest. This is when the selective advantage is evident.

So don't you think that just maybe the moths typically hide on something colored more like them in the day-time and thus the fact tree trunks are darker is a moot point?

No, you assume that 1/ they can tell, & 2/ that it is commonly available.

Also, is there any evidence that moths are primarily eaten during the day-time?

? I have to repeat myself again? I'm sure most moths are eaten during the night, but the selective advantage of flying around & being uncamouflaged offers a zero selective advantage. The only way one phenotype is going to be selected over another is in daylight, what happens at night is irrelevan. Please learn to read.

Irrelevant.

So you consider the fact moths are mainly eaten by bats to be irrevalent? Maybe one type of bat prefers the darker colored moths and another the lightly colored moths, and can distinquish them by their flying patterns, and thus differing bat populations are to explain differences in types of moths found?

*snicker* You do realise you are invoking natural selection to counter an experiment in natural selection? Even your ad hoc, unsupported "what-ifs" conclude natural selection.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 19 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:07 PM		randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 84 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 9:04 AM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5214 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 66 of 350 (261794)
11-21-2005 4:14 AM

Reply to: Message 21 by randman
11-20-2005 9:17 PM

Good Grief, Charlie Brown

randman,

And of course, natural selection is neither here nor there since this is presented as evidence for evolution, not just natural selection. In fact, trying to pass off natural selection as some sort of magical thing to create evolution is inherently dishonest, imo.

Natural selection is evolution, as it results in change over time. So if the experiment shows natural selection, it also shows evolution.

Nobody said the experiments demonstrated macroevolution, speciation, genetic drift etc., just plain ol' vanilla natural selection, but nevertheless, evolution.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 9:17 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 68 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:24 AM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5214 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 88 of 350 (261877)
11-21-2005 10:31 AM

Reply to: Message 84 by Admin
11-21-2005 9:04 AM

Re: Forum Guidelines Warning

Admin,

Guilty as charged: Tu Quoque.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 84 by Admin, posted 11-21-2005 9:04 AM		Admin has seen this message but not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5214 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 93 of 350 (261909)
11-21-2005 11:13 AM

Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-21-2005 4:24 AM

Re: Good Grief, Charlie Brown

randman,

mark writes:

Natural selection is evolution, as it results in change over time. So if the experiment shows natural selection, it also shows evolution.

randman responds writes:

Can you not see why this smacks of deception to me? Your stance is the evo stance, but honestly, science textbooks are not about evolution in this sense.

Yes, science textbooks are.

If you think differently, then show that the peppered moth study of natural selection is specifically & in context conflated with speciation et al. Something like, "look at those peppered moths, macroevolution therefore occurred", will do.

Under that definition, Young Earth Creationists are evolutionists.

They accept that aspect of evolution, yes. It's up to them as to whether they call themselves evolutionists, or not.

To interchange a loose term "evolution" with a definite term for a specific scientific theory also called "evolution" all jumbled up together is something we critics object to and think is dishonest and misleading.

It is not misleading. What is dishonest is claiming something that shows change over time, & therefore evolution by definition, is misleading in actually calling itself evolution.

What is under debate is ToE, which is universal common descent modeled based on evolutionary models. It's not "evolution" in the sense of just "change." No one has ever claimed the world doesn't change.

No, the universal ToE is not under debate. A study that shows natural selection in action is under debate. And given that natural selection is evolution in action, is not wrong or misleading to call a spade a spade.

What is wrong is to falsely imply that all of the ToE is being conflated with the word "evolution", rather than just natural selection.

So if there is no speciation, and really no macroevolution, then the peppered moth story is not "evolution in action" as evolutionists claim, and moreover, the premise is shown to be faulty.

The peppered moth study shows differential predation leading to changes in allele frequency over time via natural selection. Calling this "evolution in action" is perfectly valid. It's exactly what it is. If anyone thinks that this has anything to do with speciation then I suggest they learn to read for context.

But getting back to your post, switching between the theory of evolution and then the theory that change happens since evolution is mere change, is inherently deceptive and just plain wrong.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Evolution is change over time. The ratio of melanic phenotypes has changed over time, therefore evolution has occurred. There is nothing deceptive about this, it is just plain fact. Pre-industrial revolution saw no to low frequencies of dark phenotypes, now they are prevalent. The reason for this is explained quite trivially by differential predation between the two phenotypes. Ergo, evolution happened as per the theory of evolution.

Note that at no point am I switching between the theory of evolution & back, I am at all times within the theory.

Evolution doesn't have to involve speciation, nor macroevolution. Think of it like this, evolutionary theory is a set that consists of a number of mechanisms, the observation of any means evolution is in evidence. What is not true is that all parts of the set must be observed in order for evolution to be in evidence.

A bit like evidence of an electron is confirming evidence for atomic theory, you don't need to see protons & neutrons at the same time, but then at the same time it doesn't pretend to be evidence for anything other than an electron.

Giving the conflation you engage in it's proper name, you are committing a fallacy of division. Evolutionary theory has multiple components, natural selection, recombination, neutral theory, population genetics, genetic drift, speciation etc. Each of which is different & specific in it's own right. All of which can be considered evolution, just because a study is showing speciation but not genetic drift, does not mean that evolution is not in evidence.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 68 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 4:24 AM		randman has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

7 online now:	AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, popoi, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1

Summations Only